Tuesday, May 31, 2005

“I approached the registration table and was greeted by a very friendly fellow who looked me in the eye and said, ‘Are you black?’” said Parnell. “I told him that I'm not and he told me that the conference was only for people who were black and so I wasn't able to register to attend the conference.”

Such is the report by Brian Parnell a social worker from Bakersfield California, as reported by KGET.com, he attempted to attend a conference held by the National Association of Black Social Workers but was rejected due to his color. Amazing! So much for progress. Black people are trifling! Imagine if this were in the reverse and a black man, or better yet, a black woman tried to get into an all white conference and was told she couldn't because she was black or because she was a female? All hell would break loose and you know it. It would be front page news and she would be on Oprah in a heart beat!

Personally, I could care less if this man was excluded due to his skin color. I really don't believe any private entity should be forced to include anyone, they have the right to exclude whomever for whatever reasons. What makes this a big deal is that the National Association of Black Social Workers is a non-profit organization and therefore they could lose their tax-exempt status.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter, I doubt if he would have learned anything productive that would actually assist him in his job. Most likely this conference was filled with a lot of pandering and ego stroking of the so called accomplishments of black social workers in the "community". If he really wants to learn about how to deal with blacks read up on Tomos Sowell, Walter Williams, and definately check out Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson at bondinfo.org. I gaurantee he will be far more effective as a social worker having garnered info from these individuals than from this black social workers conference.

By way of Lashawn BarberI came across a column written by a Jon Qwelane from www.news24.com. Take a gander at it and you will see that America is really evil and deserved 9/11. Not only that but the incidents at Abu Graib and GITMO were atrocities and barbaric in nature. Although, as far as GITMO is concerned, nothing has proven to be true.

Needles to say I found Mr. Qwelane's column is extremely misguided and totally disregards reality. While he mentions Abu Graib and GITMO, detainees who are prisoners of war, enemy combatants captured doing acts of war, he fails to acknowledge that Al Queda and other Muslim extremists groups have beheaded numerous individuals who for the most part were civilians and not part of any military group, remember Nick Berg? Not to mention the scores of Iraqis murdered in cold blood by terrorists bombers. Yet, no outrage is shared by the likes of this person, just blatant, misguided, and ignorant diatribes about how evil America is, even having the audacity to refer to Abu Graib as "barbaric torture"! Amazing! But beheading innocent civilians is fighting for justice right? I don't see anyone here in America packing their bags to move anywhere else? But I do see scores of individuals from all countries and walks of life trampling their way into this country. Why? So that they can become victims of a racist, evil Conservative regime? I think not.

At the beginning of the column Mr. Qwelane asks what does America have against Muslims, but this is the wrong question. For truly it should be what do Muslims extremists have against the West? Mr. Qwelane, I strongly advise you to get a clue.

As Miss Barber points out, Osama has lots of "friends".

On a similar note, Evan Sayet writes about why Democrats supported Clinton when he went to war in Bosnia but not President Bush when going into Iraq. As usual he makes a very strong case for why Democrats come off as hypocritical idiots more often than not. He writes:

All of these efforts were, of course, disingenuous. Clearly if the Democrats truly believed it was "wrong" to remove the leader of a sovereign nation they would have been marching in the streets screaming "No Blood For Sex" when the previous president launched wars against Bosnia and Kosovo removing from power the sovereign leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Excellent point here. I wonder if other so called "average" Americans see the inconsistency here? It seems that every liberal "friend" or family member I know believes President Bush to be wrong but have amnesia when it comes to Clinton and his escapades in the oval office. Speaking to them, you would have to believe that all of societies ills are due to the evil Bush administration and his non-stop pandering to corporate interest, mostly oil of course. Amazing!

I found out through OneMillionDads.com that the Ford Motor Company openly and actively supports the homosexual agenda, having pledged to give $250,000 to help build a dedicated homosexual community center in Ferndale, Michigan. Regarding their donation, Ford Motor Company Fund President Sandra Ulsh said, "Ford is proud to support Affirmations ( The Gay and Lesbian Community Center) and its partners." Amazing!

If you would like to support OneMillionDads.com by boycotting Ford & signing their petition visit www.boycottford.com. This site has all of the info regarding Ford's involvement with the homosexual agenda and offers tips as to what you can do in your local area to combat such foolishness.

Friday, May 20, 2005

John Gibson of Foxnews.com did an interview with Eric Braverman, Author, "THE EDGE EFFECT" regarding teenagers and their apparent inability to do two things at once, specifically to do regular household chores. You can read the transcript yourself but basically Mr. Braverman offered an explanation as to why kids, teens in particular, seem to have a difficult time these days in carrying out responsibility. An example of one of his reasons when asked by Gibson why teens can't do two things at once:

ERIC BRAVERMAN: Teenagers have an adult body and a child's brain. They just don't develop working memory and logic and planning and reasoning until they're about 17 years old.

Is this true? Do kids not develop basic reasoning, planning and the like until they are 17? I find this very difficult to agree with. I mean, if a kid can learn to play Super Mario Sunshine and not only advance throughout the intricate levels within the game but master it and then beat the game altogether, then I think they can figure out how to do homework, wash a dish, or mow the lawn, or take out the garbage and be able to do it daily without being told to do it several times. Am I wrong here?

My son at 3 years old knows not to touch the oven because it can burn him, "too hot daddy, don't touch" he says. I might ad that he has never touched the stove, nor has he set foot into the kitchen without my supervision, yet from my clear and sturn instructions he knows not to touch it. I've personally witnessed him figure out how to stand on a stool to reach the light switch, or a favorite toy off of the shelf as well as stop right at the edge of a jungle gym platform apparently knowing that he may fall...planning? reasoning?

One point made that I do agree with is when Braverman referred to all of the distractions of today affecting the memory or "brain power" of these kids. I agree with that sentiment, video games, t.v., etc. seem to only sap the brain power out of our youth and causes a great deal of distraction and attention problems. I've seen this first hand with my own kids. This is where the parents need to step in and regulate such activity. Balance it out with reading, writing excorcises and family games. For me, I eliminated video game playing during the week and Saturday. Every Saturday me and my two boys spend the day first reading a good book, either together or separately, I may even have my older son do a book report on whatever he reads. We then spend the remainder of the day at the park. We close out the evening with either more reading or a game or we may watch a movie together as well. During the week its homework for him and for the younger one, learning time (i.e. alphabets, numbers, reading, maybe some games). As for television watching, one hour devoted to Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune during the week, out here in Ca. they come on back to back, Jeopardy is the favorite in my house! Then its bed time. A typical week, doesn't always work out that perfect but I believe it makes a difference. I've noticed a greater level of concentration and apprehension when they read.

Like I said, I agree with the points about distractions but Braverman sounds like he is making excuses for the lack of good parenting and slothful behavior from teens, rather than actually giving any real solutions to these problems by addressing the actual causes.

More about kids, this time bullies and bills:Michael the Archangel blogs about a new school code against bullying that seems to really spell out something that should be obvious to every other clear thinking human being on this planet. Yet, for some reason school officials feel they have to include "All" of these discriptions to be fair I suppose.

Paul Jacob of limitedgov.org comments here about the lower house of Texas's legislature passing a bill banning "sexually suggestive" routines by pep squads at high school events, can we say going a bit too far with the legistlating morality bit!? What will be next, passing a bill banning chewing gum in school classrooms? This is why schools need to be privatized, let the people govern themselves while the government do its real job, like protect our borders from terrorists, gangs and drug-runners. Sounds like somebody needs something to do up in Texas.

05/24/05 Even More About Kids:Lashawn Barber links to a Foxnews.com article about Lionel Tate who around 6 years ago killed a 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick by jumping on top of her from a stair case. He was tried and convicted and plead guilty to murder but only served 3 years and was put on house arrest for a year and a 10 year probation period followed. Apparently he has struck again, pulling a gun on a pizza delivery guy when he arrived at the door of a friends apartment. Amazing!

Monday, May 16, 2005

By way of Lashawn Barber, Hubes Cube blogs about an effort taking place by several Penn State students to raise $10 million dollars to research American White racism. Apparently they didn't get the memo about how we already know that there are racist whites in this country and probably always will be. Not only that but there are actually racists blacks, hispanics, and Asians as well. (Gasp!)

The group's co-founders, Chad Lassiter and Darin Toliver, who both grew upin Philadelphia, and received their master's degrees from Penn, say that asblack men they feel constant pressure to prove themselves at the WestPhiladelphia campus and beyond as something other than uneducated thugs.

Personally, I fail to see the dilemma here. What is so bad about having pressure to prove ones' self? Isn't this what many others, especially high achievers, whether black, white or otherwise, go through? Isn't the pressure to prove yourself to your peers and superiors one of the things that drives great men to do great things? I mean , come on now, it is apparent that this racism they speak of isn't very affective given that they are where they are now. Hubes Cube points out that maybe this pressure is due to affirmative action preferences given to blacks which cuases a sense of insecurity for those receiving it, doubt and suspicion of one's abilities on from peers and others who didn't receive these preferences. I tend to agree with this as well.

Something tells me that they will get their $10 million with relative ease given the current PC, Multi-Culti climate that exists today. Sad indeed. When will blacks wake up and grow up? The rest of the article talks of there intended efforts in mentoring kids (heaven help them) and focusing on American White racism because it is contstantly "glossed" over and never really studied. I guess all of those Pan-African, African-American, and Afro-American studies classes in colleges across the nation are still missing the mark. Amazing!

Messy Christian has another good post on Spiritual Abuse, citing that those who have gone through it should not feel guilty for being duped or betrayed for we are all human and capable of such things. If one comes to you to open up about their abuse she suggests that you listen more than advise, which I for one agree with, and don't condemn or rebuke them in any way at the moment. I agree with that also. She expresses a special contempt for the one who simply tells this hurting individual to not question the pastor, just pray for him/her. Which lead to an even longer discussion on pastors and questioning their authority.

I've commented on this particular subject before in regards to false teachings about prosperity and so forth, so it shouldn't be of any surprise to know that I encourage all Christians to always question their Pastors. Never rest on the word of one man no matter how perfect he may appear to be. Personally, I don't believe churches should have pastors, at least not in the capacity that they do now. There should be some level of leadership, but it should be a leadership that can be checked by the people and not held to unrealistic standards. Unfortunately, there are those who hold pastors in an unnatural, and unrealistic level of prominance. This is dangerous indeed, for it causes that Christian to become weak. This is the condition of much of the black church today, many Black Christians follow these faith and prosperity preachers and hold them up as being divine hearers from God. Yet, the evidence does'nt support such a notion, given the huge chasm that exists between what these men and woman preach and teach and what is actually taking place within the community. For example the outrageous amount of out-of-wedlock births, abortions, and high crime rate among black youth. It is blindingly obvious that the words being preached by these individuals is of no affect and good for nothing. There is no power in them.

Blacks need to dismiss these false leaders and embrace Christ as their leader in all things, being lead only by God's spirit. Then we will see real leaders rise up among us who will be true followers of God's word. Don't get me wrong, there are some Black leaders out there who are already doing this, who are standing up as real men and women of God, doing what is right. The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson comes to mind. Who are not using there authority as a means of subjugating the masses but as a means of delivering truth and being used by the God to set men and woman free. This is what real, Christian leadership ought to be doing.

I challenge all church going blacks and black Christians especially to really listen to their pastors, question them on today's big topics and find out where they stand. Challenge them to step up and start making a real difference within their respective communities.

Related topics: Speaking of false leaders, Jesse Jackson has come to town to offer spiritual counseling and legal support for the family of Winston Hayes who was shot four times after having 120 rounds fired at him by L.A. County Sheriff Deputies on Monday night. Officers said he fit a discription of an assailant accused of shooting two deputies. When he would not pull over at the request of the police, the officers opened fire. Several of the rounds hit homes and windows in the neighborhood, luckily no one else was hit, save one deputy. Mr. Jackson still calls this a hate crime stating "This is in fact a hate crime,"... "It is a violation of Mr. Hayes' civil rights." Now given that Mr. Hayes would not comply with police orders to pull over and actually rammed a police vehicle, and later admitted to being under the influence of drugs, I would say no ones "civil rights" have been violated, he got what was coming to him. I believe Mr. Jackson is doing what is commonly called "ambulance chasing", he is merely going where the fire is, even if he has to first start one before putting it out. Mabye we should call him the arsonist Jesse Jackson instead of reverend. Notice he is not coming out in support of the residents who experienced property damage nor is he commenting on the fact that the Police department has made arrangements to pay for the damage and has apologized to the residents.

Friday, May 13, 2005

The Messy Christian has a wonderful and thought provoking post about mega-churches and the monies spent on these massive buildings. I think it relates quite well to what I am addressing here regarding tithing. For many of these church facilities, they were well financed by the hard earned tithes of the congregation. Yet, is this what tithes were meant for? Does having a large building that can house hundreds, maybe even thousands of people help to advance the Gospel? A point that Messy mentioned really stuck in my mind, she said

"The problem is the way we do church: 'the world coming to the church' rather than 'the church going to the world'. Thus, the need to have a centre to do ministry becomes urgent, and thus the focus on buildings."

That hits the nail on the head doesn't it. I mean, what did Jesus command before he ascended? To go out into the world right? Are we fulfilling this command when we build mega churches to house congregants? Are there any churches out there that recruit, train, and send out congregants into the world to spread the Gospel? Wouldn't such a method be closer to what Jesus commanded?

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD. If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it. The entire tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod—will be holy to the LORD. He must not pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.'

Leviticus 27:30-33

Is it biblical to tithe today? Are we as Christians mandated to continue the tithe and if so, who should we be paying this tithe to? The churches, ministers and clergy? In the scripture above the tithe is defined as fruit, trees, and cattle or flock (animals), it doesn't mention anything about money being given to God or it being holy to Him. One might say, well there was no form of currency at the time, people relied on the trade of goods and cattle as currency. That may be true yet in another scripture it states:

Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.Deuteronomy 14:22-29

So, apparently there was some form of currency in the form of silver that could have been used for tithing, yet it was only used as a contingency. This particular passage also answers another question posed earlier, who shoud the tithe go to? From what I read here it should go to me to be used to honor and rejoice in the presence of God. Interesting.

I bring up the subject of tithing because it is something that, from my experience, is an untouchable doctrine within the Christian church, specifically the black church. Whenever questions arise regarding tithes one is quickly rebuked and told that they just should be paid. Many invoke Malichi 3:8 saying that you will be cursed with a curse if tithes are not paid. I even heard and have seen first hand ministers give whole sermons on Malichi 3:8 telling the congregation that if they do not give their tithes and offerings then they too will be cursed by God. Yet, I disagree with such a premise, how is it that one can take a scripture that isn't referring to the new church and somehow apply it or really mis- apply it, to today's church? It wasn't written to us but it was written for us. The Lord was not speaking to the church but to Israel, specifically the Levitical Priests who were responsible for collecting and giving the tithes and burnt offerings as Numbers 18:24-28 describes an order given to Moses to instruct the Levites (priesthood) on collecting the tithes(fruits, oils, animals) from the people and then honoring the Lord with a tenth of that tithe. So Malichi 3:8 cannot be applied to today in the sense that it has been by many, meaning, the true point of the scripture is missed if we focus on the tithing aspect from a monetary perspective. The crux of Malichi is regarding the heart of the priests not being with God, but having a contempt for God and His word. Demonstrating this contempt by only giving the bare minimum as burnt offerings. You can parallel this with the situation with Cain back in Genesis 4, Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable due to his contempt for his brother and unwillingness to give God what was right as opposed to Abel who gave God the fat portions of his flock.

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought SOME of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought FAT PORTIONS from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Genesis 4:2-5 (emphasis mine)

So the plight of Cain wasn't that he didn't give but how and what he gave to God. He did not give God his best nor was it from a contrite heart but one of contempt for God. Keep in mind here that I am not saying we should not tithe at all, but that it seems to be done in the wrong spirit given to the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons. I've stated on this blog before that we should not give to God in order to get from him. This is a distorted relationship to have. What if marriage was designed in such a way where each only gave love and support to the other only to get something in return? I think we've all seen the result of such an arrangement in many households today. The Lord doesn't need anything from us for all belongs to Him anyway.

Well, I will end here and pick this up tomorrow. There is a lot more to this that I want to touch on.